tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <jfrederic.cl...@fujitsu-siemens.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/webapp/apache-2.0mod_webapp.c
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:10:07 GMT
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
> "jean-frederic clere" <jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I could stick with the "last official tarball" since that's an easy piece of
> >> thing to download. So, if the latest version is 2.0.18 alpha (don't even
> >> know since I use HEAD),
> >
> > The is 2.0.25 (Thank STATUS!). 20010808 is a date...
> 
> I don't know about status, but the latest one is 2.0.18 (Alpha) posted in
> June (see http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/)

No it is: http://dev.apache.org/dist/ otherwise you are very far from the
head...

> 
> > I added the #ifdef to Ryan's patch. And I would keep them until Apache-2.0
> > releases a beta.
> 
> Well, we had betas coming out already, 2.0.16 was a beta, and then the next
> releases were labeled alpha again... Release naming of HTTPd AFAICS depends
> on the level of "trustedness" of the code in the moment of releasing.
> 
> > Apache-2.0 is still changing a lot. (HEAD may broke things like external
> > modules or be broken for some hours).
> 
> That's good... That's exactly what I want... If a new HEAD of httpd breaks
> my module in compilation because I didn't update it, well, then it's my
> fault for not keeping up to date with it... And as I said, let's screw
> backwards compatibility until the code is labeled as FINAL, or something at
> least a little bit closer to it... Right now, the right thing is stick with
> HEAD...
> 
> > I am normaly testing using HEAD. (that is why I am known on
> > dev@httpd.apache.org ;-))
> 
> As anyone else... Everyone uses HEAD...
> 
> > We cannot tell a TC user to update his Apache-2.0 to the lastest version each
> > time there is a new version, he probably wants to test TC not httpd. But we
> > should warn him when he is not using the lastest httpd-2.0 version.
> 
> Yes, we should... I believe that if someone wants to try out the WebApp
> module for 2.0, he'll have to get the latest version available at the
> moment... We're DEVELOPING the sucker, we're not (yet) supporting it...
> (well, both projects HTTPd _and_ WebApp)

Not everyone in TC are specialists of PERL/autoconf/C and able to fix httpd-2.0
or APR code (specialy libtool/autoconf).
I DO think we have to offer a minimalistic support on already installed
httpd-2.0. To give a change to the user so he starts testing (That is easy then
to tell try why version x.y.z).

By the way I am not going to support 2.0.18.

> 
> > So I am -0 for an error message and +1 for a warning.
> 
> I'm way +1 on the error message... :)
> 
>     Pier

Mime
View raw message